The rulebook explicitly refers to compensating as a minifig who is not spending any part of their actions on that turn dedicated towards moving.

Verbatim:"On any turn in which the Heavy runs, jumps, Bails, uses an Angry Inch, or engages in any other type of Movement, he can't use any ability that requires the extra inch of Size from Compensating, although he may still take normal Actions like a regular Size 1" minifig."

Flying movement, even when technically used as part of a vehicle, is still movement. Operating a jetpack will always require either a standard action (which would leave a heavy unable to fire ANY weapon in the first place), or movement if the operator is also a pilot (which would also disqualify a heavy from compensating, since they're engaging in a type of movement). When firing a big gun from the deck of a ship on the other hand, a different minifig is piloting and using their movement: the heavy is free to go nuts.

IVhorseman wrote:Flying movement, even when technically used as part of a vehicle, is still movement. Operating a jetpack will always require either a standard action (which would leave a heavy unable to fire ANY weapon in the first place), or movement if the operator is also a pilot (which would also disqualify a heavy from compensating, since they're engaging in a type of movement). When firing a big gun from the deck of a ship on the other hand, a different minifig is piloting and using their movement: the heavy is free to go nuts.

Ohhh, right, I forgot about that... So any movement includes "move-equivalent" stuff as well. Got it.

So logically, I should just give the jetpack an A.I. mind and have it fly itself, thus freeing up the pilot passenger to blast away.

LEGO are like boobs - designed for kids, but adults have plenty of fun playing with them too.

IVhorseman wrote:Or just make them a pilot/gunner and embed the gun as part of the vehicle. You're coming out of jetpack territory and approaching a hardsuit at this point.

The end result of which will probably make the former pilot into a mostly superfluous meaty filling as the suit attains self-awareness, starts zooming around on its own, blowing shit up, and then ponders if there is more to life...

LEGO are like boobs - designed for kids, but adults have plenty of fun playing with them too.

The disadvantage of the Compensating Specialty is that the Heavy can't fire his oversized guns and hand weapons unless he has both feet planted firmly to the ground. On any turn in which the Heavy runs, jumps, Bails, uses an Angry Inch, or engages in any other type of Movement, he can't use any ability that requires the extra inch of Size from Compensating, although he may still take normal Actions like a regular Size 1" minifig.

I'd just treat the jetpack as a Flying Horse for simplicity's sake.

Natalya wrote:What's that? I can't hear you over the sound of how banned you are.

So would I be correct to assume that the above discussion of jetpack vs. armored "passenger" sets precedent to neatly get around the "no armored flight" rule since we scale it up to more conventional aircraft and just build a "flying frame" and then have it "carry" the armored fuselage of something heavily armored like a Soviet Mi-24 Hind?

LEGO are like boobs - designed for kids, but adults have plenty of fun playing with them too.

A copter could carry armored minifigs, but not armored vehicles/structures. I'd say that anything that's armored and over size 2 can't be carried by a flyer, but I know that's still specific enough to rules-lawyer around (besides, a giant size 7 dragon should still be able to swoop down on an armored horse and drop it from a good height). I'm just going to leave it at "don't be an asshole."

If you want an armored flying vehicle, just give it a higher armor value. I'd place a hind between SL 2 and 3. 3d10 armor is still pushing it.

... seen here carrying everything from tanks to houses to other helicopters like a boss.

IVhorseman wrote: I'd say that anything that's armored and over size 2 can't be carried by a flyer, but I know that's still specific enough to rules-lawyer around

If it pleases the court..."Creations with the ability to carry things can pick up and carry objects their own Size at no cost". Since there is no restriction to movement, we may assume a flying unit is free to engage in any such picking up and carrying. Considering that every payload in the above images was equal to or smaller than the largest dimension of the Skycrane, I'd say it fits neatly into the standing rules.

IVhorseman wrote: (besides, a giant size 7 dragon should still be able to swoop down on an armored horse and drop it from a good height).

I was actually just experimenting with that tactic before getting back to my computer. It would be rather effective for flying units to pick up and drop other units - whether by dragon's claws, grappling cables, or a spaceship's tractor beams - since grapples are automatic, falling damage tends to hurt, and unless you're aiming to drop your victim on a specific target (hopefully another enemy unit), there is no Use Rating to worry about.

But hey, if we allow something as fictitious as a dragon (which, in physics terms shouldn't even be able to support its on body mass, let alone fly, but yeah, I know, magic), then we can make some allowances for real-life helicopter capabilities we've had since 'Nam.

IVhorseman wrote: I'm just going to leave it at "don't be an asshole."

If all players involved are on basically even footing, then I wouldn't say it's "being an asshole". It's one thing if all my opponent is fielding are tribals armed with spears and I swoop in with an armored assault gunship blaring "Ride of the Valkyries" at him, but if everyone has access to similar armored flyers (or effective counters) then if becomes more about clever tactics and less about some cheeky bastard trying to munchkin in an unfair advantage.

IVhorseman wrote:If you want an armored flying vehicle, just give it a higher armor value. I'd place a hind between SL 2 and 3. 3d10 armor is still pushing it.

Well it is essentially a "flying tank".

LEGO are like boobs - designed for kids, but adults have plenty of fun playing with them too.

I'm aware that real-life copters carry around tanks and shit, but we're not talking about real life. This is Brikwars. Everything is blown comically out of proportion.

Things that are considered to be wearing heavy enough armor to get the ability to shrug off a die of damage are considered too heavy to be in the air. Period. Not allowing armored minifigs onto a helicopter would be taking that concept too far past the point of fun, but the biggest reason fliers aren't allowed to be armored is because they're SUPPOSED to blow up. In general, as cool as armored units may be, having living soldiers and functioning vehicles at the end of a battle should NEVER be a priority.

Now, can you have a helicopter fly a tank in at the start of a battle? Sure. It's awesome. I hate telling people how to play the game, but saying "well technically since this is two vehicles even though they're built onto the same model I can have my hover-death-ship be shielded" deserves the hammer of discipline. Think about it this way: rules in brikwars are supposed to be forgotten about in favor of awesomeness. Rules in brikwars are NOT meant to be fandangled around nitpicking at the technicalities in order to achieve the awesome.

I feel like the rule about beating the shit out of any player acting like an asshole covers this well enough. If some people think that flying a tank around is worth beating you up over, then you're getting beat up. Otherwise it's fine, who cares.

As for the idea of a flying frame carrying an armored chassis - if you really wanted to do this, the "frame" would have to be an independent chassis and have a Structure larger than whatever it's carrying, obviously. It couldn't just be a skeleton frame and a helicopter blade, that's all Surface Elements and no Structure.

I think I can safely rule out the idea that you could control the flying vehicle from within the carried Armored vehicle, or vice versa. The flying vehicle's cockpit is part of the flying vehicle's chassis, which is unarmored by definition.

Later on I'm writing more specific rules on what can and can't be carried (mainly due to the question of passengers and rather than anything to do with this kind of nonsense rules-lawyering), but at that point it should be clearer what limits apply to flying vehicles as opposed to ground vehicles. They already have special limitations in terms of no heavy armor and a stricter weapons limit, so they'll probably get some additional notes on what they can and can't carry.

Natalya wrote:What's that? I can't hear you over the sound of how banned you are.

I'm going to have 4 guys in heavy armor with a big gun each.Each guy stands on a tank turret.The 4 turrets are mounted on one tank and all 8 guns can fire while being transported by:A large helicopter that carries the tank with wires. The helicopter has guns and rocket pods, pew pew.The helicopter is being carried on a wire from an aerospace plane armed with laser goats.The plane is carried on wire from a death moon POOP spaceship.

All of this is molded out of plastic and hung mobile style over a child's crib.